Originally posted by brandnewfatboy
Away for a few days on an impulsive trip to Oman; this thread has turned rather more acidic !
Excellent. The scientific community tend to be rather too polite. Vituperative comments are far more entertaining.
Will have a look at the historical accuracy of the bible links. i suspect that there may well be a lot of historical detail in there, it being the history of a people and their interpretation of the world. although i might examine some other sites without christian in the title as well for balance.
Good to see you back.
the problem of course is the jump from 'history book' to 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened'. historians get things wrong - both modern historians and blokes wandering round in the desert 4000 years ago. (er, sweeping generalizations, but you get my drift)
Good point. Especially in a society where we tend to regard the ancients as rather quaint and simplistic, it is very hard to attribute to them the sort of accuracy we would like. However, if the Bible really is something more than just a book of ancient texts, it should be reflected in it's accuracy in areas we can test.
presumably the arguement is that the bible is a 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened' because god 'made the bloke write down said definitive truth' just right.
You beat me to it. Actually, I believe that God protected the writings that best told the story, and then handed them to the Israelites, who, if you look back into history, were fanatical about keeping the documents unchanged and protected.
um. too many assumptions for my taste. assume nothing often better.
Good idea. Check the bible out. See if the civilizations that the bible mentioned actually existed. Check out this country of "Ur" that Abraham is supposed to have come from. Stuff like that.
What I did, after I reached the conclusion that there had to be a Designer, based upon what I saw in nature, was to go and read all of the major holy books of different religions, like the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Bible, etc.
Maybe it was my western bias, but only the Bible told a concise, and where it could be tested, completely accurate story.
I think many Christians, actually, treat God like an inscrutable "divine force". I tend to look at it; "If God wanted to tell the history of the world, how would he do it?".
are there creationists etc who believe that the earth is in fact billions of years old? That a god started the universe off, and left it to it? whatever one's belief in the existence or not a god, this fits with what we know so far and in no way clashes with the bible (just that the bible does rather well at condensing billions of years of development into a few history pages )
Yes, many of them actually. I just read an article by a microbiologist who believes that God made the world work according to certain physical laws, that basically predestined it for evental concious life. I completely disagree with him on the scientific principles of his argument, but his belief is a pretty common one these days.
Heck, I would like to be a naturalist some days. Without God, we're basically intellegent animals. Why bother explaining God at all? I mean, if there is no divine personality to be accountable to, you can do whatever you want, right?
or, is the key precept that humans exist, therefore god exists.
I find this all rather confusing.
No, not really. From where I am, I just look at the fundamental problems that science has trying to fit a naturalistic model into the constrainments of fact. (arguments like the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, the absense of macroevolution, etc.) However, if you have an axiom that a Designer made these objects, you are then obligated (at least I was) to do a little research into who this Designer might be.
A note to everybody bickering about the euphrates, and the other rivers.
Someone said that a flood as big as the one stated in the bible would (most likely) destroy any existing topography around which these rivers might have existed. (As well as destroying the garden of eden). Absolutely right.
What makes more sense is that as the earth was repopulated after the flood, the same (or similar) names would have been given to major rivers. Especially if the new river reminded the settlers of the old, pre-flood one. A similar analogy would be the tradition of naming cities in America after cities from the country of origin. I grew up just outside of "New London", as a matter of fact.
As for the Ark not holding enough animals, this is a very
old argument, one big enough that it's had several books written about it. First, here's
a synopsis of one, but the best I have found would be John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: a feasibility study".
Segovius (incorrectly) states that the bible says five of each animal were taken on the ark. Only five of every "clean" animal were taken, i.e. those considered edible. This would (presumably) allow for a faster regeneration of basic herbivores like sheep, cattle, etc.
Originally posted by MarcUK
As for the ark, I have seen a feasability of structural integrity study which states it is physically impossible to build a structure to those dimensions out of wood and have it stay in one piece..
Well, let's see it!